Mendenhall backs Peterson's 'slave' comment

We are currently undergoing updates to our site and are working to improve your experience on all devices that you use throughout your day. If you should find a page or a story that is not working correctly, please click here.

Thank you for your patience,

TribLIVE.com Team

Running back Rashard Mendenhall is drawing attention to himself — and not because of his costly fumble in Super Bowl XLV.

Mendenhall on Wednesday supported Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson's analogy between the NFL and the slave trade.

"It is a lot deep than most people understand," Mendenhall posted on the social networking site Twitter. "Anyone with knowledge of the slave trade and the NFL could say that these two parallel each other."

Peterson, a perennial All-Pro, fired the most controversial salvo between players and owners following the NFL's first work stoppage since 1987.

Players decertified as a union Friday after they could not reach a deal with the owners on a new collective bargaining agreement. The owners responded by locking out the players Saturday.

"It's modern-day slavery, you know?" Peterson told Yahoo! Sports on Tuesday. "People kind of laugh at that, but there are people working at regular jobs who get treated the same way, too. With all the money ... the owners are trying to get a different percentage, and bring in more money. I understand that; these are business-minded people. Of course this is what they are going to want to do. I understand that; it's how they got to where they are now. But as players, we have to stand our ground and say, 'Hey — without us, there's no football.'

"I don't really see this going to where we'll be without football for a long time; there's too much money lost for the owners. Eventually, I feel that we'll get something done."

Peterson's comments generated heavy criticism, including from some NFL players.

Mendenhall, however, stood behind Peterson in a series of tweets posted late Tuesday and yesterday.

Mendenhall declined an interview requested from the Tribune-Review through his agent, Mike McCartney. McCartney confirmed that Mendenhall authored the tweets that appeared on his official Twitter site.

The Steelers also declined comment.

Mendenhall, who was coming off a second straight 1,000-yard season, is an unlikely player in the firestorm Peterson started. He is generally reserved around the media.

But he did not back off his Twitter comments, firing back at those who were critical of him.

"If you look back and dissect what I said, I didn't say that the NFL was slavery, I said that they parallel each other. Look up the word parallel," he wrote. "I could break down how but that would take an amount of ideology and big words that a lot of you wouldn't understand."

Another Mendenhall tweet said: "Learn to LISTEN before you pass judgement. Because speaking without knowledge of subject is truly ignorant."

Twitter has become popular among professional athletes.

Among the Steelers who have active accounts on Twitter or Facebook, another social media website, include receiver Hines Ward, strong safety Troy Polamalu and outside linebackers James Harrison and LaMarr Woodley.

Professional athletes' use of Twitter became a hot topic in November after Buffalo Bills receiver Steve Johnson dropped what would have been a game-winning touchdown pass against the Steelers. After the Steelers 19-16 overtime win, Johnson sent a tweet blaming God for his miscue.

That drew attention to the drawbacks the immediacy of social media.

Mendenhall is coming off one of the best seasons by a Steelers running back. He rushed for 1,273 yards and 13 touchdowns.

However, he lost a fumble at a critical juncture of last month's Super Bowl.

It came when the Steelers, who had scored 14 unanswered points, were driving in the third quarter against the Green Bay Packers.

The Steelers, who were trailing 21-17 when Mendenhall fumbled, lost, 31-25.

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our
Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent
via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.